Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Royal Bank of Scotland N. V. v. CIT (2024) 341 CTR 981 / 162 taxmann.com 780 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-No conflict between provision of DTAA between India and Netherlands-Non-discrimination and there was no ambiguity in classification and rates of tax, assessee, which is not a ‘domestic company’, is liable to tax at rates prescribed for a company ‘other than a domestic company’-DTAA-India-Netherlands. [S. 2(17), 2(23A), 90, Art. 24(2)]

Tasavver Husain v. ITO (2024)113 ITR 236 (Agra)(Trib)

S. 271B :Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Running a milk booth for distribution of products of Mother Dairy and Vegetables Pvt Ltd-Commission income-Bona fide belief-Penalty is not leviable. [S.44AB, 273B]

Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers and Contractors v.Dy. CIT (2024)113 ITR 34 (SN)(Chd)(Trib)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Undisclosed Income-Surrender of income-Specific charge-Burden of proof to establish there was undisclosed income is on Assessing Officer-Penalty is deleted.[S. 132, 132(4)]

Mahaonline Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) (2024)113 ITR 47 (SN)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Depreciation on Biometric devices at 60 Per Cent. Computer block-Assessing Officer allowing depreciation at 15 Per Cent-Penalty is deleted. [S. 2(11), 32]

India Flysafe Aviation Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2024)113 ITR 431 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice not specifying the charge of proceedings initiated-Penalty is bad in law.[S. 274]

Punam Kanwar Bhati v. ITO (2024)113 ITR 750/229 TTJ 518/237 DTR 297 (Jodhpur) (Trib)

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Mens rea must be present-Mere additions penalty cannot be imposed. [S. 40A(3), 270A(9)(d), 270AA

Sangeeta Saini (Smt.) v. ITO (2024)113 ITR 52 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Death of assessee-Commissioner was intimated of death of assessee-Order passed in the name of dead person-Order is bad in law-Additional ground is admitted.[S. 254(1)]

HBC Lifesciences P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)113 ITR 65 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business promotion expenses-Freebies-Change of opinion–Cannot revise the order where the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiry and allowed expenses. [S. 37(1)]

Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)113 ITR 388 /228 TTJ 227/235 DTR 49 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Income from other sources-Share valuation-Issue of right shares-Deeming provision-Revision on ground unsecured loans not included in valuation-Revision order is set aside. [S 56(2)(viib, R.11UA)

Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Malebennuru v. ITO (TDS) (2024)113 ITR 56 (SN) (Bang) (Trib)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Delay of three to five years-Condoned-Failure to deduct tax at source-Matter is remanded to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration as per law. [S. 194C]